Slashdot Mirror
Facial Bones Grown From Fat-Derived Stem Cells
TheClockworkSoul sends in an article up at Scientific American, from which we quote: "Stem cells so far have been used to mend tissues ranging from damaged hearts to collapsed tracheas. Now the multifaceted cells have proved successful at regrowing bone in humans. In the first procedure of its kind, doctors at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center replaced a 14-year-old boy's missing cheekbones — in part by repurposing stem cells from his own body. To create the new bones, which have become part of the patient's own skull structure and have remained securely in place for four and a half months, the medical team used a combination of fat-derived stem cells, donated bone scaffolds, growth factors, and bone-coating tissue. The technique, should it be approved for widespread use, could benefit some seven million people in the US who need more bone — everyone from cancer patients to injured war veterans."
They already can and do - all the time!
And imagine those brains that become "inelastic" and slower to learn. Imagine having a body that is immortal, but a brain that is slowly losing function.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
If I've read the literature right, embryonic stem cells are, in general, readily available and easily manufactured. Also, they are the best at forming to any cell type we would want.
In contrast, adult stem cells are relatively specialized, meaning that they won't make just anything, but things that are somewhat similar.
That is to say that adult stem cells have been immensely helpful, but we think that embryonic stem cells may be better.
is there really any reason to be against embryonic stem cells now that they can be harvested without embryo destruction, or are made from sources that would be completely discarded anyway? Really, if we could move some of the less informed political activists for less wharrgarbl we could do a lot more with both types of stem cells.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The question of whether we can do "just about everything with adult stem cells" is still quite open.
Could we get more funding dedicated to stem cells if we required that it all be used for adult stem cell research? Yes. Would that accelerate the overall pace of advances in stem cell research? Quite possibly not. There are two different games right now: the first is to see what we can do with stem cells (this is largely being done with embryonic stem cells). The second is to see how we can make adult stem cells behave like embryonic stem cells. The second game feeds back into the first. Indeed, if we get good enough at the second, we will no longer need embryonic stem cells, and we can then focus all of our energies on seeing what we can do.
If and when we get really good at extracting or reprogramming adult cells to behave like embryonic stem cells, we will also have the side benefit of not having to worry about alloimunity (tissue rejection). For example, in the particular case being discussed here, the fear of alloimmunity was probably a key reason for making the effort to use the patient's own cells. In the meantime, from a scientific perspective, it is prudent to continue to invest in both embryonic stem cells and in research towards no longer needing embryos from which to harvest these cells.
I think we have too many big-boned girls already...
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
If I've read the literature right, embryonic stem cells are, in general, readily available and easily manufactured. Also, they are the best at forming to any cell type we would want.
In contrast, adult stem cells are relatively specialized, meaning that they won't make just anything, but things that are somewhat similar.
That is to say that adult stem cells have been immensely helpful, but we think that embryonic stem cells may be better.
There are many research programs on embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells, and now induced pluripotent stem cells. All of these have many promising futures in science, yet only adult stem cells and IPSC are promising in the ever-so-influential and variable field of ethics/morality, especially those of fundamentalist origin. You are correct about the easy manufacture of embryonic stem cells. Growing stem cells is actually not hard at all and you can make relatively infinite numbers from one discarded embryo.
On the contrary, IPSC circumvents not only the ethical issues of the field, but also many of the clinical concerns relating to transplantation, immune response, etc. Since IPSC can be derived from the patient's own tissues, the products IPSC therapies and procedures are much less likely to be rejected. For most adults, we don't have embryonic stem cells with our own DNA in it at all.
Ultimately, I think it is way too soon to start determining which of these methods will serve best, though we can acknowledge the power of ethical values and the objection of many people to embryonic stem cells. You might find it interesting that many popular religions actually support embryonic stem cell research, though most interpretations of Christianity do not.
The surgeons had to build the shape and structure of the desired bone, the scaffolding, from cadaver femur bone tissue.
From the popular media I've been lead to believe the promise of stem cells the ability to grow specific bones, tissues, and organs, using information encoded in the cells, rather than just growing the generic tissue and shaping it artificially.
What needs to happen for us to go from growing cheek bone tissue around scaffolding, to implanting stem cells and instructing them to build cheek bones?
If we had the technology, would the world tolerate its use?
Currently in first world countries being rich or being poor might make life more or less pleasant for its approximately 77 years, but so far, being the wealthiest or most powerful person in the world can't even guarantee you'll live to see 90.
If being rich and being poor meant the difference between living to 177 instead of 77, or even 177 instead of 107, what would that do to our society?
How many people would steal or kill to live even another 70 years? How many people would kill or go to war to allow a parent, spouse, or child to live another 70 years?
I'd like to think that Heinz wouldn't kill to allow his wife to live another 70 years, but I don't know that I wouldn't. I don't know that I wouldn't for myself. Would you?
This technique will be a great boon for people with a massive amount of dental damage - where the jaw has been eaten away from disease, or injury has made it impossible to even use dentures. It'll likely be expensive for a long time, but for people who are facing a life of eating through a straw, and having massive facial deformities, this would be a huge change in their lives.
Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
That's better than a frail body with "a brain that is slowly losing function" ? Really?
Americans of African descent invented the technique for preserving blood plasma, pioneered open-heart surgery, the advanced shoe lath, and a slew of peanut-derived products including paints, plastics, and dyes.
And imagine those brains that become "inelastic" and slower to learn. Imagine having a body that is immortal, but a brain that is slowly losing function.
If we can fix the body so that it no longer ages, then we can fix the brain so that it no longer ages.
At the least, we need to know if we can replicate fully the features and functions of embryonic stem cells. We'll need embryonic stem cells for that purpose alone. If adult stem cells don't work completely like embryonic stem cells, that means that we may need a supply of embryonic stem cells indefinitely as well.
Tell me again why we need embryonic stem cells.
Tell me again why you're asking on slashdot instead of reading a scientific paper on the benefits of ESC research? Tell me you don't rely on /. comments for ALL your information on important subjects of the day.
And imagine those brains that become "inelastic" and slower to learn. Imagine having a body that is immortal, but a brain that is slowly losing function.
Being 25 years old until I die of stupidity/old-age at 90? (Maybe I burned my house down? =P )
Sign me up!
What? Having the medical market effectively subsidized by government will not reduce the money to be made in the market, it will increase it. If there's anyone to profit from the reform, it's the medical industry. You'll pay more for it in the end, but that very fact means that the medical industry will make more money from it, and therefore will have more incentive to develop it.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.